After the Government announced its plans to privatize the "Belaruskali", a question arose: Who will become a co-owner of one of the largest enterprises of Belarus, and how can it tell on its workers? Vasily Korobov, Chairman of the Belarusian Independent Trade Union (BNP), told in his interview to the website praca-by.info about what investor would be better for the enterprise and whether its workers have any chances to influence the terms of privatization.

Let us remind you that on June 30 Vladimir Semashko, First Vice-Premier, said that China was the only applicant for buying a share in the capital of the flagship of the national economy.

However, under the information published by the "Ezhednevnik" (Daily Journal), competitors of Belarusian leaders appeared in Canada. Recently, a memorandum was signed on cooperation in building production facilities there for the capacity of 3 million tons of potash fertilizers per year with participation of Chinese investors.

At the same time, the experts of the edition do not reject another alternative (or maybe the main) potential buyer of the share in "Belaruskali" – former main owner of the "Uralkali" Dmitri Rybolovlev.

"In my opinion, it will be absolutely wrong if the 'Belaruskali' departs from its Russian partners, that is, from the 'Silvinit' and 'Uralkali'," Vasily Korobov believes. "The best variant is to sell this 25 percent of shares to Russians. In this case we may assume creation of a holding company capable to dictate conditions in the market of potash fertilizers. The Chinese are in fact just consumers, while Russians are manufacturers. It's an essential difference."

At the same time, in his opinion, privatization is not beneficial for the "Belaruskali" itself.

"From the economic viewpoint, 'Belaruskali' is a self-sufficient enterprise. The aim of its privatization is just to additionally fund the state. The enterprise doesn't need it. There's no benefit for the workers and for the enterprise," the trade-union leader is sure. "The Government estimates the above minority pack of shares to be some 6-7 billion dollars. The enterprise can earn this money in 3-4 years and preserve its full property. However, the country leaders need money right now."

"Vasily, is there any difference for the workers in who the co-owner will be?"

"Surely, Russia has higher production culture than, say, the Chinese, and technologies are better. But, taken at large, it's all the same for the workers who will come – Russians or Chinese. Workers take no part in privatization anyhow; their wages won't go up. The owner of that 25 percent will say: 'Guys, I pay your wages, and all your privileges and guarantees – I'm sorry'. Certainly, we'll fight for preserving the system of collective bargaining between the employer and workers' representatives. In fact, the present collective agreement fixes all the rights and guarantees for the labour collective, but it's valid only for 2 years. All the talks about possible layoffs at the enterprise after privatization resort to the guarantees by the state that the present social package will remain. But these are just talks. Recollect: quite recently they kept saying that 'Belaruskali' will never be privatized. And what? Therefore, it's difficult to say what will be there after expiry of the current collective agreement."

"What are the steps of the trade union in these conditions to protect workers' interests?"

"Back in spring we offered the government to meet at the roundtable and discuss all the possible alternatives of development of the situation. It was clear already then that the case moved towards privatization. But they told us that it was not topical. They wouldn't even talk to us. Maybe, they didn't perceive us as partners; maybe, they were afraid that we could somehow interfere with the process."

"In the end of May, the Independent Trade Union of Miners (NPG), a structural unit of the BNP, sent its offers to the employer, among them – to enable workers to take part in purchasing the shares and to make the process of privatization open as much as possible. As to the first point, one month later – on June 30 – it was taken off the agenda: a President's decree prohibited individuals to take part in incorporation. And as to point two, I'd say that it is incorporated in the collective agreement. But the fact that a trade union representative is present at sittings and meetings on incorporation issues is just a technical point."

"For some reasons a trade union representative has no influence; the main reason is the absence in our country of the law on enterprise. The legislation has no such notion as a labour collective. We cannot make a decision at a meeting or at a conference of the labour collective and, being guided by a respective law, to demand from the employer and the state to fulfil it. And the recent decree about participation of legal entities only in privatization has completely removed ordinary workers away from the process. It's of course a great minus."

"But the prospect of privatization appeared not yesterday. It existed all these years. Why haven't the trade unions demanded the law on the enterprise earlier?"

"In the 1990s Belarus had the law, according to which the labour collective had the right to a share in the capital of the enterprise. Then, at the 'Belaruskali' we started, as far as I remember, somewhat from 10 percent. We split the shares among the workers. We took the full value of the fixed assets, isolated 10 percent and divided among all the workers. There was a question how to divide. But we found a good variant that satisfied everyone. We took the coefficient of labour input. But how to define one's labour input? His or her salary is the coefficient of labour input. For example, as of January 1, 1996, my salary was an equivalent of 2868 US dollars. And we ran the accounting. Some years later the share of the labour collective went up to 14 percent, because our money was working. But then the law on the enterprise disappeared."

"And what was the end of your share?"

"I took my money back. However, it was already a much smaller sum. I don't remember all the nuances now, but somehow they managed to explain what happened to people. But today we have neither law on the labour collective nor a share of the property of the enterprise in workers' hands."

"Can the trade union do anything today?"

"In view of the fact that our workers have rather high wages as compared with other enterprises in the country, which, by the way, is a great NPG's achievement, protest actions today are not realistic. Besides, many workers are bound with housing credits and payments for training their children and grandchildren. They have to work in order to make all the payments. The negotiation process is the only remaining argument."

"It would be reasonable to bag subscriptions and address the country's leadership. I can't say that we were late in anything, although there was an element of surprise for us. Because we had been long assured that there would be no privatization of 'Belaruskali'; then, rumours appeared about incorporation and privatization, and – finally – everything was done very quickly. But, in any case, we aren't able yet to affect the laws passed in this country without participation of labour people."

"What do you think: if the labour collective has clearly defined its position, not by extreme actions, like a strike, for example, but by an appeal to the country's leaders, could we hope for success?"

"I'm not sure. Although a drowning man catches at a straw. Possibly, this also would help somehow. It is sad that people who had worked at the enterprise for many years and put not only their health but also their money into it, are left with nothing in hand. In fact, most of the profits remain with the enterprise, and this money was earned by the whole labour collective."